Fernandez vs.

Maravilla
G.R. No. L-18799 March 31, 1964

Case No. 2

Facts: Maravilla sought the probate of his late wifes will. The siblings sought denial of probate on the ground that it wasnt signed on each
and every page by the decedent. They likewise prayed for the appointment of their brother as special administrator in lieu of the husband to
protect their interest and also due to failure to file an inventory. The probate of the will in the meantime was denied and to this, the husband
appealed. Consequently, the brother was appointed as administrator. The husband filed a petition for certiorari and for preliminary
injunction, praying therein the annulment of the brother as co-administrator and the prohibition of the probate court from proceeding in his
removal as administrator. The petitioners moved for the certification of the same to the SC as the amount involved exceeds the jurisdiction
of the CA. Nevertheless, the CA decided in favor of the husband.
Issue:Whether or not the ruling of the CA is correct.
Held: Under Section 2, Rule 75, of the Rules of Court, the property to be administered and liquidated in testate or intestate proceedings of
the deceased spouse is, not only that part of the conjugal estate pertaining to the deceased spouse, but the entire conjugal estate. This Court
has already held that even if the deceased had left no debts, upon the dissolution of the marriage by the death of the husband or wife, the
community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased. In a number of
cases where appeal was taken from an order of a probate court disallowing a will, this Court, in effect, recognized that the amount or value
involved or in controversy therein is that of the entire estate. Not having appellate jurisdiction over the proceedings in probate, considering
that the amount involved therein is more than P200,000.00, the Court of Appeals cannot also have original jurisdiction to grant the writs of
certiorari and prohibition prayed for by respondent in the instant case, which are merely incidental thereto.
Note also that the present proceedings under review were for the annulment of the appointment of Eliezar Lopez as special co-administrator
and to restrain the probate court from removing respondent as special administrator. It is therefore, a contest for the administration of the
estate and, consequently, the amount or value of the assets of the whole estate is the value in controversy. It appearing that the value of the
estate in dispute is much more than P200,000.00, the Court of Appeals clearly had no original jurisdiction to issue the writs in question.